1 2025:CGHC:32644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 316 of 2020 Maniklal Diwakar S/o Ranjan Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Khutu, Thana Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chhattisgarh.......Applicant ... Applicant versus Dr. Dilip Kumar Diwakar S/o Maniklal Diwakar Aged About 33 Years Occupation Govt. Servant, R/o Village Khadgaov, Chowki-Khadgaov, District Surajpur At Present R/o Chikitsa Aawas Pradhamik Svasthy Kendra Parisar Pampapur Post And Chowki Khadgaovakala, Thana And Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.......Non Applicant ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:51:43 +0530 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 and may kindly be remand the case before the learned Court below/Kawardha (Kabirdham) for deciding on merit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/father filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., along with an application for grant of interim maintenance, before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) against the respondent/son. The applicant stated that he is the father of the respondent, who is his only son. The applicant sold about 4 acres of land to meet the educational expenses of the respondent, who, after completing his studies, is now working as a Government Doctor and is presently posted at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Pampapur Post. The applicant further submitted that he originally owned about 12 acres of land, out of which 4 acres were sold for the education of the respondent, and about five years ago, the remaining land was also sold upon the assurance of the respondent that he would maintain the applicant and his stepmother. The respondent also took an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- from the applicant with the assurance that he would take care of the applicant’s maintenance, but thereafter, the respondent failed to do so. Due to this, the applicant moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, which was registered as MJC No. 41/2016, but on the assurance of the respondent that he would maintain the 3 applicant, the case was withdrawn. The applicant further submitted that despite assurances, the respondent did not maintain him, due to which the applicant again filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, which was registered as Case No. 509/2019. At that time also, the respondent assured the applicant that he would take care of him and his stepmother and requested the applicant to withdraw the case, stating that since he is a Government Doctor, his reputation would suffer if such a case continued, and he would not fail to maintain the applicant in the future. On this assurance, the applicant withdrew the case. However, again, the respondent failed to maintain the applicant, and therefore, on 15.01.2020, the instant case was filed before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham for maintenance. The respondent, who is a Government Doctor posted at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Pampapur Post, earns a salary of about Rs. 1,30,000/- per month, and his wife (daughter-in-law of the applicant), who is also a Government servant, earns a salary of about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the respondent is fully capable of maintaining the applicant but is knowingly and intentionally neglecting to do so. 4. The applicant further submitted that due to his old age, he is suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, and paralysis, and is undergoing continuous treatment. Being old and infirm, the applicant is unable to earn a livelihood, and despite having sufficient income, the respondent is not taking care of the applicant. The respondent is morally and legally bound to maintain the applicant. 4 Therefore, the applicant has filed an application seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month. A copy of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with the affidavit, interim application, notices of the earlier case, the application for withdrawal of the earlier case, and the order dated 16.09.2019 to 05.12.2019 are being collectively filed herewith as Annexure A-1. 5. The learned Family Court, after obtaining the report, registered the present case as MJC No. 11/2020 and issued notice to the respondent, fixing the case for his appearance on 14.02.2020. On that date, the notice had not been served upon the respondent, but without any application for preliminary objection, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 14.02.2020, dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for want of jurisdiction, which is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that when the matter was fixed for the appearance of the respondent, it passed the impugned order without ensuring service of notice upon the respondent. The learned Family Court itself recorded in the impugned order that notice had not been served on the respondent. In such a situation, the Court ought to have reissued notice to the respondent. However, without applying its mind, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order, which is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Section 126 of Cr.P.C., and hence, it is liable to be set 5 aside. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that when the case was registered, the opposite party was not present, and no application for preliminary objection on the ground of want of jurisdiction was filed, nor was any reply filed by the respondent. Despite this, the learned Family Court observed that the case was filed without jurisdiction, even though the applicant specifically mentioned in the cause title of his application and in his affidavit that he is a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court below. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly incorrect. He further submits that the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court in connection with his case, expecting that the respondent would appear in due course. In such a situation, the learned Court below ought to have granted tim to the applicant to produce documents, such as the Aadhaar Card, Driving Licence, and Voter ID Card issued by the Election Commission of India, to prove that he is a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Copies of the Aadhaar Card, Driving Licence, and Voter ID Card are filed herewith as Annexure P-3 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the learned Court below did not grant time to address the jurisdictional issue. The counsel for the applicant searched and showed a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh passed on the jurisdictional point in Cr.R. No. 890/2018, order dated 22.04.2019. However, the learned trial Court did not discuss the said judgment and instead relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is not applicable to the present case 6 because the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Court failed to interpret the provisions correctly and summarily dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, which is against the provisions of Section 126(1)(c) and Section 126(3) of Cr.P.C. and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is a non-speaking order and has been passed with an incorrect perspective, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had earlier filed two applications under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent before the same authority, and those cases were withdrawn after the respondent settled the matter with the applicant. At that time, the issue of want of jurisdiction was never raised, and therefore, the objection regarding jurisdiction at this stage is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after the judgment in Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, and in several subsequent judgments, has held that on the jurisdictional point, if the applicant is temporarily residing at any place, then the Court at that place will also have jurisdiction to entertain the application, even if the respondent resides outside that jurisdiction. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 7 9. From perusal of the order of the learned Family Court, it transpires that the applicant sought maintenance from his son under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. while residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kawardha (Kabirdham), whereas the respondent resided at village Khadgawan, District Surajpur, which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kawardha (Kabirdham). As per the provisions contained in Section 126(1) of the Cr.P.C., in a case where a father sought maintenance from his son, the application was required to be filed before the Court having jurisdiction over the place where the person from whom maintenance was sought resided. Therefore, it is clear that the Family Court, Kawardha (Kabirdham) did not have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the application filed by the applicant and dismissed the same as having no jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed by learned Family Court is just and proper. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings recorded by the concerned Family Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek